Commonwealth v. Monroe

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee v. DALE ROBERT MONROE Appellant

J-A22003-14

No. 101 MDA 2014

SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

FEBRUARY 19, 2015

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence December 13, 2013

In the Court of Common Pleas of York County

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-67-CR-0001005-2013

BEFORE: PANELLA, J., SHOGAN, J., and FITZGERALD, J.^*

JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J.

Appellant, Dale Robert Monroe, appeals from the judgment of sentence entered December 13, 2013, by the Honorable John S. Kennedy, Court of Common Pleas of York County. No relief is due.

The trial court summarized the facts of this case as follows.

On December 10, 2012, at 6:47 p.m., Officer Albert Miles, was on patrol in his marked police vehicle, stationed at the Fawn Grove Boro Rutter[']s parking lot. During his patrol he noticed a [b]lack 2008 Chevrolet Silverado parked in a parking [space] with a white male driver in the driver's seat. Pursuant to his normal job duties, he ran a PennDOT records check which indicated that the registered owner, Dale Robert Monroe, the Appellant in this case, had a license status of DUI Suspended. The officer then pulled up the PennDOT picture of the registered owner and it matched the white male sitting in the driver seat. The officer observed the vehicle from a distance until the vehicle began to pull out of the Rutter's parking lot. Upon exiting the parking lot, the officer activated his emergency lights and conducted a traffic stop.

Officer Miles approached the vehicle and explained to the driver why he pulled him over. The driver related to the officer that he had a license, but handed him, instead, a change of address card. The driver then related that he does not have a picture license. The driver then handed the officer his oil change paper work along with his registration and insurance. While engaging the driver, the officer detected a moderate odor of an alcoholic beverage emanating from the driver's breath and person. The driver's eyes were also bloodshot and glassy. The driver indicated that he had not been drinking, when questioned.

Officer Miles identified the driver as Dale Monroe, the Appellant in this case, by his passport. Appellant related that there was alcohol in one of the cup holders. Officer Miles requested that Appellant exit the vehicle and perform field sobriety tests. When Appellant opened the door, the officer observed an open glass bottle of Bud Light Lime in the driver['s] door cup holder that was half-full. Upon exiting the vehicle, Appellant was unsure of his footing.

Upon complete of field sobriety tests, Officer Miles placed Appellant into custody and transported him to York Hospital for a blood draw. The lab results indicated a blood alcohol content of .101, and the presence of Diazepam, Nordiazepam, and Morphone-Free in Appellant's blood.

Trial Court Opinion, 3/14/14 at 2-3 (unnumbered).

Appellant was arrested and charged with four counts of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol or Controlled Substance,¹ Driving While BAC .02 or Greater While License Suspended-DUI Related,² Careless Driving,³ andRestriction of Alcoholic Beverages.⁴ Appellant filed an Omnibus Pre-Trial Motion to suppress physical evidence. Following a suppression hearing, the trial court denied Appellant's motion. A bench trial was conducted and the trial court convicted Appellant of two counts of DUI⁵ and Driving While BAC .02 or Greater While License Suspended-DUI Related. The trial court sentenced Appellant on December 13, 2013. This timely appeal followed.

On appeal, Appellant argues that Officer Miles lacked both reasonable suspicion to believe that a violation of the vehicle code had occurred and probable cause to believe that Appellant was driving while impaired. We have reviewed Appellant's brief, the relevant law, the certified record, and the well-written opinion of the able trial judge, the Honorable John S. Kennedy. We find that the trial court's opinion, filed on March 14, 2014, ably and comprehensively disposes of Appellant's issues on appeal, with appropriate reference to the record and without legal error. Therefore, we affirm on the basis of that opinion.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

/s/_________

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.

Prothonotary

Date: 2/19/2015

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, YORK COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CRIMINAL DIVISION

Duane Ramseur, Esquire

Jenna M. Fliszar, Esquire

STATEMENT OF LOWER COURT PURSUANT TO RULE 1925(a) OF THE PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE

Appellant, Dale Monroe, was charged with four counts (4) of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol or Controlled Substance⁶, Driving Under Suspension-DUI Related and Alcohol in System⁷, Careless Driving⁸, and Restriction of Alcoholic Beverages⁹. On November 13, 2013, during a stipulated bench trial, the court found Appellant guilty of Count II¹⁰, Count III¹¹, and Count V¹².¹³ Appellant was sentenced on December 13, 2013, as follows: Count III¹⁴, five (5) years of intermediate punishment ("IP") with direction to servenine (9) months out-mate program followed by one year of house arrests with alcohol monitoring; and Count V, ninety (90) days on out-mate concurrent with count III. Appellant received a total aggregate sentence of nine (9) months of out-mate followed by one year of house arrests during the term of his IP sentence.

On December 13, 2013, Appellant filed a Post-Sentence Motion, which was denied on the same. On January 13, 2014, Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal of this Court's verdict entered on November 13, 2013. We directed Appellant to file a 1925(b) Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal. On February 4, 2014, Appellant filed his timely 1925(b) statement. We now issue the following Opinion:

FACTS AND PRODECURAL HISTORY

On December 10,2012, at 6:47 p.m., Officer Albert Miles, was on patrol in his marked police vehicle, stationed at the Fawn Grove Boro Rutters parking lot. (Aff. Prb. Cs. Miles, ¶ 1). During his patrol he noticed a Black 2008 Chevrolet Silverado parked in a parking stall with a white male in the driver's seat. Id. Pursuant to his normal job duties, he ran a PennDOT records check which indicated that the registered owner, Dale Robert Monroe, the Appellant in this case, had a license status of DUI Suspended. Id. The officer then pulled up the PennDOT picture of the registered owner and it matched the white male sitting in the driver seat. Id. The officer observed the vehicle from a distance until the vehicle began to pull out of the Rutter's parking lot. Id. Upon exiting the parking lot, the officer activated his emergency lights and conducted a traffic stop. Id.

Officer Miles approached the vehicle and explained to the driver why he pulled him over. Id. at ¶ 2. The driver related to the officer that he had a license, but handed him, instead, a change of address card. Id. The driver then related that he does not have a picture license. Id. The driver then handed the officer his oil change paper work along with his registration and insurance. Id. While engaging the driver, the officer detected a moderate odor of an alcoholic beverage emanating from the driver's breath and person. Id. The driver's eyes were also bloodshot and glassy, Id. The driver indicated that he had not been drinking, when questioned. Id.

Officer Miles identified the driver as Dale Monroe, the Appellant in this case, by his passport. Id. at ¶ 3. Appellant related that there was alcohol in the one of the cup holders. Id. Officer Miles then requested that Appellant exit the vehicle and perform field sobriety tests. When Appellant opened the driver door, the officer observed an open glass bottle of Bud Light Lime in the driver door cup holder that was half-full. Id. Upon exiting the vehicle, Appellant was unsure of his footing. Id.

Upon completion of the field sobriety tests, Officer Miles placed Appellant into custody and transported him to York Hospital for a blood draw. Id. at ¶ 4. The lab results indicated a blood alcohol content of .101, and the presence of Diazepam, Nordiazepam, and Morphone-Free in Appellant's blood.¹⁵

ISSUES PRESENTED

I. Whether the Trial Court erred in denying [Appellant]'s Motion to Suppress evidence obtained as a result of an unlawful traffic stop. More specifically, whether the officer possessed sufficient articulable facts to support a conclusion of reasonable suspicion that a motor vehicle violation was being committed when he executed the traffic stop of [Appellant]; and

II. Whether the Trial Court erred in denying [Appellant]'s Motion to Suppress evidence obtained as the result of an unlawful arrest. More specifically, whether the officer possessed sufficient probable cause to arrest [Appellant] on suspicion of Driving Under the Influence and request a blood draw as a result.

DISCUSSION

A thorough and careful review of the record reveals that each of the issues raised by Appellant are without merit and thus, the instant appeal should be DENIED.

I. Whether the court erred in denying Appellant's Motion to Suppress evidence as a result of an unlawful traffic stop.

Appellant claims that the trial court erred in denying his Motion to Suppress because the officer did not possess sufficient articulable facts to support a conclusion of reasonable suspicion that a motor vehicle violation was being committed when he executed the traffic stop of Appellant.

Appellant averred that, although the officer pulled up the PennDOT picture of the registered vehicle, the lightening was such that a proper identification of the driver was not possible, Appellant claims that the officer's description of the driver as a white male withdark hair was not sufficient to match the picture of the registered driver and, therefore, the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to effectuate a traffic stop on the basis of a suspended license.

The standard of review of a suppression court's ruling is well established in Pennsylvania. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania...